Children need a mom and a dad. Both are extremely important.
[/quote]
I completely disagree with that, there are countless examples of people raised by single parents coming up fine /nitpicking[/quote]
Yeah, and people use the thief on the cross as a rule as well, what both have in common is they are both exceptions. Statistically and traditionally children are better off with both mother and father (even better with elder family members in the household, and even better with multiple siblings).
[quote]ZEB wrote:
homosexual men lead one big Will & Grace lifestyle.
[/quote]
Lol, anyone ever see the statistics on domestic and sexual abuse in homosexual households? Anyone see the average marriage length between gay couples?[/quote]
Yeah, I totally can’t see where anyone would call you guys bigots. I mean, ZEB is only making a sweeping generalization about a diverse group of people, and Chris is only trying to bring up any “facts” he can find that cast a negative light on that same group.
Now if the conversation was
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
black men lead one big Menace 2 Society lifestyle.
[/quote]
Lol, anyone ever see the statistics on domestic and sexual abuse in black households? Anyone see the average crime rates in black neighborhoods?[/quote]
people would likely say y’all were bein just a touch racist. But since homophobia is en vogue now (whereas racism is so 60 years ago), you get a (mostly) free pass on those generalizations and biased “fact finding”.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< God doesn’t exist. You had a psychotic episode years ago. Get over it.[/quote]I’ll tell Him you said so though I’m pretty sure He already knows. Do know that you continue to be in my prayers. [quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< Prove existence of your sky wizard, or cease using arguments based on his existence.[/quote]You don’t get to command people what arguments they choose to put forward. What a free thinker you are huh? Ask yourself why you just CANNOT leave us deluded fanatics alone and go do your thing?
[/quote]You’ll telepathically notify your omniscient Zeus ripoff for me? Thanks bud, that totally makes sense! Oh, and you’ll pray too - maybe if you ask him real nice he’ll change his eternal plan for you. Oh wait, that makes no sense either. But you’re not worried about making sense, you deluded fanatics are waaaay too busy trying to dictate who other people fuck because you think the invisible man in the sky doesn’t want them to.[/quote]Do what you want. Just don’t try to tell me it’s marriage. It is a perversion of God’s created order.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< people would likely say y’all were bein just a touch racist. But since homophobia is en vogue now (whereas racism is so 60 years ago), you get a (mostly) free pass on those generalizations and biased “fact finding”. [/quote]Being black IS God’s created order for people who are and is void of moral content. Homosexuality, as is all sin, is stiff necked defiance of the clearly declared created order of almighty God. My church is full of black people who will propound for you the sins of black America (and homosexuality) better than I can. I am a minority there.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< God doesn’t exist. You had a psychotic episode years ago. Get over it.[/quote]I’ll tell Him you said so though I’m pretty sure He already knows. Do know that you continue to be in my prayers. [quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< Prove existence of your sky wizard, or cease using arguments based on his existence.[/quote]You don’t get to command people what arguments they choose to put forward. What a free thinker you are huh? Ask yourself why you just CANNOT leave us deluded fanatics alone and go do your thing?
[/quote]You’ll telepathically notify your omniscient Zeus ripoff for me? Thanks bud, that totally makes sense! Oh, and you’ll pray too - maybe if you ask him real nice he’ll change his eternal plan for you. Oh wait, that makes no sense either. But you’re not worried about making sense, you deluded fanatics are waaaay too busy trying to dictate who other people fuck because you think the invisible man in the sky doesn’t want them to.[/quote]Do what you want. Just don’t try to tell me it’s marriage. It is a perversion of God’s created order.
[/quote]
Under the current definition in America, no, its not. I believe the definition should be expanded to include homosexual couples.
And, did you read the part where I said you need to Prove God Exists for any of your “Well God says this” arguments to be worth a shit?
You’re a really good guy, Tiribulus. Please don’t think my lack of respect for a particular belief belies a lack of respect for you, I assure you it doesn’t.
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
Brother Chris, would you elaborate? I know a few gay people that would say it is completely natural. Also, Im aware of several versions (I can’t think of a better word to describe it) of natural law, I’m not well read enough to say they all go against gay marriage.
[/quote]
People get confused between the words nature and nature. I know obvious right?
I work right next to the Sociology building so I get to hear about the ‘nature of man’ all day. So, I for sure know that people aren’t just being obviously ignorant, they just do not know. When most of the pop. says ‘nature of man’ 19 out of 20 times, I’m guessing I am going to hear about a caveman, or a monkey, or some kind of animal that does something in nature. That is the opposite of the ‘nature of man.’
The nature of man is not savage, but is ‘art’ or civilization (Burke). It can be said that certain animals have displayed homosexual tendencies, but man isn’t to emulate beast (after all beast does not really follow any rule of civilization, it will eat its own young, it will kill relentlessly, it will kill their own leaders, &c.), he is to cultivate civilization, we have reason after all.
I haven’t read everything about NL myself, so I can’t say either, but about 2400 years has shown us otherwise that it is true that homosexual unions are wrong or at the least (depending on who you talk to) that homosexual unions are not on the same level or respect as heterosexual unions acknowledged by the public.
[quote]Train4sport wrote:
From a religious perspective: When you follow the guidelines of a user’s manual for a given product, it results in a more satisfying experience with the product. Although it may not always make sense to the user, the manufacturer has a good reason for the guidelines that are given. I believe the Bible is a user’s manual for life. God has created us and understands our emotional, psychological, and physical needs better than we do. Basically, sin consists of things that are forbidden because they are damaging to us and are outside of the parameters in which we were designed to live. Marriage and sex were designed to be between man and woman, and thus anything outside of that is harmful in some way. I believe that homosexuals are not condemned by God for being attracted to members of the same sex, they are condemned for the homosexual acts they commit. Along the same lines, heterosexuals are not condemned for being attracted to members of the opposite sex but are in trouble if they engage in pre-marital sex or adultery. The temptation is not the sin. It becomes sin when we choose the wrong way of dealing with the temptation. [/quote]
Can you provide me the reference from the user’s manual that endorses the institution of marriage as practiced in our culture. [/quote]
Book of Genesis…and Jesus said something like, no man shall separate what G-d has bound.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
There is no evidence that allowing gay marriage negatively affects social perceptions of marriage or habits of heterosexuals w/r/t marriage.
[/quote]
Tell that to the marriage rate in Europe, and the declining marriage length.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
homosexual men lead one big Will & Grace lifestyle.
[/quote]
Lol, anyone ever see the statistics on domestic and sexual abuse in homosexual households? Anyone see the average marriage length between gay couples?[/quote]
Yeah, I totally can’t see where anyone would call you guys bigots. I mean, ZEB is only making a sweeping generalization about a diverse group of people, and Chris is only trying to bring up any “facts” he can find that cast a negative light on that same group.
Now if the conversation was
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
black men lead one big Menace 2 Society lifestyle.
[/quote]
Lol, anyone ever see the statistics on domestic and sexual abuse in black households? Anyone see the average crime rates in black neighborhoods?[/quote]
people would likely say y’all were bein just a touch racist. But since homophobia is en vogue now (whereas racism is so 60 years ago), you get a (mostly) free pass on those generalizations and biased “fact finding”. [/quote]
A bigot? A homo-phobe? No, I am pointing out what is right and wrong. Biased fact finding? No, I usually find my facts from government studies and peer reviewed studies?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Under the current definition in America[/quote]
Exactly. Current, I don’t think you’d be praising the current definition in the 1850’s in America about blacks. Or, are you such a relativist that if it was the 1850’s you’d just point out that the current definition in America of blacks is a slave, and disagree with those who said that maybe we should free the slaves because it was the ‘current definition in America.’
Its all about greed. Homosexuals want the benefits that hetero marriages give them. Tax breaks, health care etc.
Muslim extremists are loving this though. At the rate of their reproduction they will rule the world in a few decades and breed Christians out. So gay couples should be hooking up with lesbian couples just to have the children to procreate. Cause we all know that there are no gay muslims, that one dude in Iran said so.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< people would likely say y’all were bein just a touch racist. But since homophobia is en vogue now (whereas racism is so 60 years ago), you get a (mostly) free pass on those generalizations and biased “fact finding”. [/quote]Being black IS God’s created order for people who are and is void of moral content.
[/quote]
[quote]Train4sport wrote:
From a religious perspective: When you follow the guidelines of a user’s manual for a given product, it results in a more satisfying experience with the product. Although it may not always make sense to the user, the manufacturer has a good reason for the guidelines that are given. I believe the Bible is a user’s manual for life. God has created us and understands our emotional, psychological, and physical needs better than we do. Basically, sin consists of things that are forbidden because they are damaging to us and are outside of the parameters in which we were designed to live. Marriage and sex were designed to be between man and woman, and thus anything outside of that is harmful in some way. I believe that homosexuals are not condemned by God for being attracted to members of the same sex, they are condemned for the homosexual acts they commit. Along the same lines, heterosexuals are not condemned for being attracted to members of the opposite sex but are in trouble if they engage in pre-marital sex or adultery. The temptation is not the sin. It becomes sin when we choose the wrong way of dealing with the temptation. [/quote]
Can you provide me the reference from the user’s manual that endorses the institution of marriage as practiced in our culture. [/quote]
Book of Genesis…and Jesus said something like, no man shall separate what G-d has bound.[/quote]
I’ll simply repeat my question. Where is the endorsement of marriage as practiced in our culture.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< people would likely say y’all were bein just a touch racist. But since homophobia is en vogue now (whereas racism is so 60 years ago), you get a (mostly) free pass on those generalizations and biased “fact finding”. [/quote]Being black IS God’s created order for people who are and is void of moral content. Homosexuality, as is all sin, is stiff necked defiance of the clearly declared created order of almighty God. My church is full of black people who will propound for you the sins of black America (and homosexuality) better than I can. I am a minority there.
[/quote]
Way to miss the point. I’ll attempt to clarify:
If someone makes a broad, sweeping, insulting generalization about (group), and they also (or someone else responds by) listing any information they can find that makes (group) look bad - yeah, its bigotry against (group).
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Under the current definition in America[/quote]
Exactly. Current, I don’t think you’d be praising the current definition in the 1850’s in America about blacks. Or, are you such a relativist that if it was the 1850’s you’d just point out that the current definition in America of blacks is a slave, and disagree with those who said that maybe we should free the slaves because it was the ‘current definition in America.’[/quote]
…so because I advocate changing the fucking definition of marriage in Amercia(to include homosexuals) you’re asking if I would have opposed changing the definition of citizen (to include blacks)?
Its too early for this shit. You get several failpoints.
Actually, if anybody would be against emancipation, its your camp, BC.
“But if we broaden the definition of citizen, it will be less meaningful to whites! Whites enjoy the pedestal! Also, if we allow the negro, we would have to allow a dog or a fence to be a citizen, too. Expanding the definition of citizen to include negroes just weakens it, and eventually “citizen” wont mean anything at all, and society will collapse! Whites are superior to negores and need to be in charge of them, its for their own good - it is the will of God, how dare you question that?”
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:DID I REALLY JUST FUCKING READ THIS???!!!
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?[/quote]I just know I’m gonna be sorry for asking this, but what, pray tell, is it that mystifies you about this very simple and undeniably true statement?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:DID I REALLY JUST FUCKING READ THIS???!!!
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?[/quote]I just know I’m gonna be sorry for asking this, but what, pray tell, is it that mystifies you about this very simple and undeniably true statement?
[/quote]
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
There is no evidence that allowing gay marriage negatively affects social perceptions of marriage or habits of heterosexuals w/r/t marriage.
[/quote]
Tell that to the marriage rate in Europe, and the declining marriage length.[/quote]
Europe is not the USA. Europe is not a homogenous continent. Europe is a continent with many different countries, languages and customs and can’t agree on minutiae of bureaucracy in the EU, much less such a divisive issue. The view on gay marriage in Italy is as opposed as many parts of America, partly influenced by the Pope and also by conservative values. The same can be said of many Mediterranean and Eastern European countries. Yes if you went to Soho in London you’d imagine differently but Europe is not some free-for-all homosexual nirvana; there are still many homophobic attacks and murders every year and many countries forbid Gay Pride parades.
You cannot ‘marry’ a homosexual couple. You can instead have a ‘civil partnership’ which does not come with the religious connotations of marriage. There is legislation underway to make churches conduct gay marriages but that looks increasingly unlikely.
The marriage rate and length of marriage in the UK at least has been declining since at least the 80s, 25 years before civil partnerships were authorised and to imply that homosexual marriages are single-handedly causing the death of marriage is simply wrong. There are many factors involved, and, as homosexuality is still only taken up by the minority, to think that they influence the majority of heterosexual relationships is unlikely.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
There is no evidence that allowing gay marriage negatively affects social perceptions of marriage or habits of heterosexuals w/r/t marriage.
[/quote]
Tell that to the marriage rate in Europe, and the declining marriage length.[/quote]
The rate of divorce has been growing a long time throughout Europe, especially northern europe. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, how could it? It started in the 60’s with the liberation of women , but there were signs of it already in the 50’s. So you should put the blame where it belongs Just kidding, but these trends do correlate and can be seen as signs of deeper changes in society.
, but there were signs of it already in the 50’s. So you should put the blame where it belongs